Com. v. Davis, E., 3194 EDA 2015

On Feb 6, 2013 Khiry Harris was shot and killed after a hallway altercation; multiple people from the Davis/White group went to confront individuals at 5728 Cottage Street that evening.
Witnesses testified Edwin Davis met others where firearms were cleaned, carried a concealed handgun to the scene, kicked the apartment door, and fired shots into a knowingly occupied apartment; ballistic and crime-scene evidence showed shots from at least two guns into the door/hallway and fatal wounds to the victim.
Co-defendant Michelle White pled guilty to third-degree murder/conspiracy and testified against Edwin; other witnesses (including Richard Boyle) identified Edwin as a shooter. Cell-call records showed calls between Edwin and co-defendant Evan Davis around the time of the shooting and location data placing Evan near the scene.
Edwin was convicted by a jury of third-degree murder, conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a license; after a bifurcated proceeding he stipulated to a prior disqualifying conviction and was found guilty of possession of a firearm prohibited.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 25 to 50 years (consecutive 20–40 for murder and 5–10 for prohibited possession); post-sentence motion was denied and Edwin appealed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Davis's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions (murder, conspiracy, firearms offenses, possession prohibited)	Evidence (eyewitness testimony, ballistics, cell records, non‑licensure certificate, stipulation of prior conviction) supports each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Testimony was inconsistent and unreliable; evidence so fraught with inconsistencies that convictions rest on conjecture	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, jury rationally found elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt
Discretionary aspects of sentence (excessive/abuse of discretion)	Sentence within standard ranges, court considered PSI, mental health report, record, and mitigating testimony; consecutive terms warranted by seriousness and defendant’s risk	Sentence is manifestly excessive and court failed to properly consider defendant’s character	Not raised on appeal to Superior Court (trial court addressed it); trial court acted within discretion; no relief granted

Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency standard; fact‑finder may believe all, part, or none of testimony)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2008) (Commonwealth may meet burden with wholly circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360 (Pa. 2005) (malice and extreme indifference to human life can support third‑degree murder)
Commonwealth v. Scott, 436 A.2d 607 (Pa. 1981) (witness testimony can establish concealed firearm for §6106 convictions)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (co‑defendant testimony can be sufficient to prove weapon possession)